(1.) ON 28. 2-1950, one Morampudi Narsayya filed an appln. accompanied by an affidavit praying for the issue of writs of habeas corpus under Article 226, Const. Ind. The grounds Stated in the petn. are that 9 persons specified in the appln. have been arrested without proper legal authorisation. This appln. was admitted and a notice was issued to the Govt. Advocate on 14-3 1900. On 14 7-1950 when the petn. came up for bearing before a Division Bench, Mr. Mohammed Mirza, the learned Govt. Advocate, on behalf of the Govt. , furnished only two copies of detention orders relating to Sitaramaiah, and Yenkayya, s/o Appayya, but did not file any copy of detention orders regarding the other seven, and stated that he had no further instructions as to whether the detention orders have been served on these seven detenus. He further said that he was not aware whether grounds of detention were furnished to all these detenus. The Division Bench, not being satisfied with the statement of the Advocate, directed the production of andhe detenus. Today, in compliance with that order, six of the detenus viz. : 1. Karamanchi Sitaramayya, 2. Rayapati Venkayya, 3. Golamandla Narsayi, 4. Golamandla Ramayi, 5. Chintala Mukkayya and 6. Rajani Ramulu, have been produced before us from their respective custodies. We are informed that. detenu 5, Chintala Somayya (Mukkayya?) is dead, and detenus Chintala Narasayi and Chintala Potai have been released. On these facts, we have to determine whether the appln. for their release should be (pasted or not.
(2.) UNDER Article 22 of the Constitution no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed as soon a; may be, of the grounds for such arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to consult and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice. Under Clause (5) of the same Article , it has been enacted that when an; person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon (is may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the surliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. It is thus clear that under the Constitution a detenu is entitled at the earliest possible opportunity to know the ground a of his detention. Even under S 7, Preventive Detention Act, the grounds of detention have got to be furnished as early as possible to the persons so deprived of their liberties, The relevant Article and Section 7, Preventive Datention Act, therefore, abundantly make it clear that if there is any detention without furnishing of grounds to the person con. earned such detention is not lawful. Those who are responsible for ordering detention in order to justify such detention have to comply with the letter as well as with the spirit of the Constitution and the Act. Moreover, if such a detention is challenged and the writ of habeas corpus is prayed for, the authorities concerned have to satisfy the Cts. entrusted with the exercise of these powers that the persons complaining of improper detention are under lawful custody. In this appln,, no documents have been filed by the Govt. showing service of the grounds of detention. Even today, we asked the Advocate. General if be was in a position to state whether the grounds of detention have been furnished to the detenus. He stated (what had been already stated on 14-7 1850) that he has no further instructions in the matter. In view of that state-onent and the fact that the appln. before the H. C. was made sometime in February, and we are hearing it today, about 5 months later, we are not inclined to adjourn the case any further or allow the detenus to be kept in custody any longer. We therefore, order that 1. Karamanchi Sitaramayya, s/o Buchayya, 2. Rayapati Venkayya, s/o Appayya, 3. Golamandla Narsayi s/o Venkayi, 4. Golamandla Ramayi s/o Venkayi, 5. Ohintala Mukkayya, s/o Narasayi, and 6. Rajani Ramulu, produced before us today be released from custody forthwith.;